300 million people with glocks just might intimidate the guy with the finger on the button.

1,200 nukes against 300,000,000 glocks. Can't wait for the MBox game.

Problem #1: guy with finger on button is part of 300,000,000 and was elected by their majority.
Problem #2: army has better aim and and better toys, is also part of 300,000,000 who paid for all these.
Problem #3: How do you know who is government if they don't identify themselves.
Problem #4: of the people by the people?
Problem #5: not all of the 300,000,000 have Glocks or any other weapon or are willing to go to war with the government they elected.
Problem #6: Supply of bullets.
Problem #7: Gov controls supply chains.
Problem #8: What then?

Try voting if you want to get rid of your government, it's cheaper. If you can't convince other people to vote for the people you want in power, have better ideas.

It would be much better if the tax payers have to pay for damages. Of course if you are poor you really need a gun to defend your property. To compare ropes to guns is plain idiotic. How about the pursuit of happiness? BTW you do have to have insurance for assemblies, concerts, movieshoots. To compare guns and knives is also completely idiotic.
If you don't have insurance for your car (which is regarded as a deadly weapon in some cases) you pay. We need guns to protect ourselves from our government? I would like to see US citizens go to war against the US army. That Glock is really going to intimidate the guy with the finger on the button.

According to Glenn it is OK to kill Sarah Palin for being stupid as long as you do it with a gun.
3 police officers have died.

After reading this reasoning, I am suddenly very convinced it should be against the law for certain people to own guns.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jamac

1,200 nukes against 300,000,000 glocks. Can't wait for the MBox game.

Problem #1: guy with finger on button is part of 300,000,000 and was elected by their majority.
Problem #2: army has better aim and and better toys, is also part of 300,000,000 who paid for all these.
Problem #3: How do you know who is government if they don't identify themselves.
Problem #4: of the people by the people?
Problem #5: not all of the 300,000,000 have Glocks or any other weapon or are willing to go to war with the government they elected.
Problem #6: Supply of bullets.
Problem #7: Gov controls supply chains.
Problem #8: What then?

Try voting if you want to get rid of your government, it's cheaper. If you can't convince other people to vote for the people you want in power, have better ideas.

You know for being a guy trying to convince us all that it is Fox News causing this, you are doing an awful good job of raising the paranoia level yourself.

I mean listing all the problems pretty much justifies a guy building his survivalist cabin up in the woods with two year supply of food and a lifetime supply of ammo and arms.

It would be much better if the tax payers have to pay for damages. Of course if you are poor you really need a gun to defend your property. To compare ropes to guns is plain idiotic. How about the pursuit of happiness? BTW you do have to have insurance for assemblies, concerts, movieshoots. To compare guns and knives is also completely idiotic.
If you don't have insurance for your car (which is regarded as a deadly weapon in some cases) you pay. We need guns to protect ourselves from our government? I would like to see US citizens go to war against the US army. That Glock is really going to intimidate the guy with the finger on the button.

According to Glenn it is OK to kill Sarah Palin for being stupid as long as you do it with a gun.
3 police officers have died.

So you wish to outlaw Glen Becks opinions. Good luck with that. Your so called quote "According to Glenn it is OK to kill Sarah Palin for being stupid as long as you do it with a gun." is simply a lie.

In February, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) rightly rejected Attorney General Eric Holder's call for renewing the so-called "assault weapons" ban, which expired in 2004 after Congress refused to renew it.

However, on Tuesday, on ABC's "Good Morning America," Pelosi said, "we [members of Congress] have to find some level of compromise" on guns. She noted that the Supreme Court, in District of Columbia v. Heller, ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to guns. But, she said, "We want them registered."

Pelosi also used the word "draconian" to describe legislation before Congress to reform D.C.'s gun laws. Apparently referring to the provision of that legislation that would permit residents of D.C. to buy handguns in Maryland and Virginia, Pelosi added, "we don't want them crossing state lines."

Pelosi's objection to exempting D.C. residents from the Gun Control Act's ban on sales of handguns (even by dealers) between residents of different states is misplaced, not only because there is only one handgun dealer in the District, but because the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) has rendered the interstate sales ban pointless and unnecessary. A D.C. resident buying a handgun will be subject to the same instant background check, regardless of where the sale occurs.

Pelosi objected to the fact that disagreement over the D.C. gun legislation is preventing a vote on legislation to give the District a voting member in the House. To say the least, we regret that the Speaker of the House believes it more important to give the D.C. Delegate a vote on the House floor than to protect D.C.'s law-abiding residents' right to defend themselves from criminals.

Meanwhile, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), the Senate sponsor of the now-expired federal "assault weapons" ban, said on a CBS "60 Minutes" program to be aired on Sunday that she is only temporarily holding off on introducing legislation to reinstate the ban. "I'll pick the time and place. No question about it," Feinstein said.

I'm about as anti Fox "News" as you can get. But at the same time I would say they played no part in this saga.

My home is about a mile from where the 3 officers were shot and so the TV, radio, and print news in the area has been saturated with coverage. One thing is clear, that this guy was a complete nut-job. Just about everyone in the neighborhood had a story about seeing him flip out on more than one occaision. He was obviously disturbed and could have been set off by just about anything.

In this case, his mom yelled at him because he came home early in the morning after a night of partying. Having not let the dog out, it had pissed on the floor indoors. He was getting scolded for shirking the responsibility of a pet. From there it just escalated and I'm sure they threw insults at each other about just about everything. He's gotten physically violent with his family in the past and so his mom called the cops while he put on a vest and picked up an assault rifle.

This had pretty much had nothing to do with the fear of guns being taken away. The guy would and did flip out about anything. In this case, it was in no way related to gun control.

There's plenty of blame 2nd or 3rd tier blame to go around, but Fox "News" should be near the bottom of that list.

(Wow, did I just defend Fox "News"? Trumptman, mark this on your calendar. )

Since we're all fired up about firearms and "fire in a crowded theater" and what not, it seems appropriate to look at what the Supreme Court has actually decided (and you can determine for yourselves whether they are right or wrong).

The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.

This was written in a decision (Schenck v. United States) in which the Supreme Court unanimously decided that:

Quote:

The First Amendment did not protect speech encouraging insubordination, since, "when a nation is at war many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right." In other words, the court held, the circumstances of wartime permit greater restrictions on free speech than would be allowable during peacetime.

In fact it was specifically dealing with a case where:

Quote:

Charles Schenck was the Secretary of the Socialist party and was responsible for printing, distributing, and mailing 15,000 leaflets to men eligible for the draft that advocated opposition to the draft. These leaflets contained statements such as; "Do not submit to intimidation", "Assert your rights", "If you do not assert and support your rights, you are helping to deny or disparage rights which it is the solemn duty of all citizens and residents of the United States to retain."

This was later overturned with the Brandenburg v. Ohio decision which narrowed the limitations on inflammatory speech unless it is directed to inciting and likely to incite imminent lawless action.

So, questions:

Was the Supreme Court right in Schenck v. United States? Were they right in Brandenburg v. Ohio? If so, back to the subject of "Fox News Murders", is Fox News (or any other media outlets spouting "inflammatory" rhetoric) guilty here under the Brandenburg test (directed to inciting and likely to incite imminent lawless action)?

Not to mention this pesky little thing called the Second Amendment to the Constitution:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

(Emphasis added.)

Note the capitalization of the word "People". Calitalized. Just like in "We the People" from the preamble to the Constitution.

I don't know how it can be any more clear.

It couldn't be less clear. If "People" means everyone everywhere having unfettered and unrestricted access to the weapon of their choice, why are the words "militia" and "well regulated" in the same sentence? It could just as easily mean the people who are a part of that well regulated militia have that right. In fact, I think it's pretty far fetched to think that it means anything other than that.

People already accept infringements on that supposed right anyway. There are rules as to who is and is not allowed, permits, waiting lists, background checks, prohibited weapons, etc. That toothpaste is also already out of the tube; people's rights can and will be restricted regardless of what the constitution says or meant if the government feels it's the best course of action (see the patriot act).

Since we're all fired up about firearms and "fire in a crowded theater" and what not, it seems appropriate to look at what the Supreme Court has actually decided (and you can determine for yourselves whether they are right or wrong).

This was written in a decision (Schenck v. United States) in which the Supreme Court unanimously decided that:

In fact it was specifically dealing with a case where:

This was later overturned with the Brandenburg v. Ohio decision which narrowed the limitations on inflammatory speech unless it is directed to inciting and likely to incite imminent lawless action.

So, questions:

Was the Supreme Court right in Schenck v. United States? Were they right in Brandenburg v. Ohio? If so, back to the subject of "Fox News Murders", is Fox News (or any other media outlets spouting "inflammatory" rhetoric) guilty here under the Brandenburg test (directed to inciting and likely to incite imminent lawless action)?

And of course the answer is "no". They would have to be aware of what all of their viewers were doing and thinking.

It couldn't be less clear. If "People" means everyone everywhere having unfettered and unrestricted access to the weapon of their choice, why are the words "militia" and "well regulated" in the same sentence? It could just as easily mean the people who are a part of that well regulated militia have that right. In fact, I think it's pretty far fetched to think that it means anything other than that.

People already accept infringements on that supposed right anyway. There are rules as to who is and is not allowed, permits, waiting lists, background checks, prohibited weapons, etc. That toothpaste is also already out of the tube; people's rights can and will be restricted regardless of what the constitution says or meant if the government feels it's the best course of action (see the patriot act).

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

"Whereas civil-rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
-- Tench Coxe, in Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
-- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188

"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms ... "
-- Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."
--Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).